Share your favorites on Show & Tell

Likely 19th Century Qing Guangxu Porcelain Bowl

In Asian > Chinese Antiques > Show & Tell and Asian > Asian Bowls > Show & Tell.
Chinese Antiques554 of 757Porcelain Jardinere - Chinese [i assume]Chinese Vase. Kangxi nian zhi. 1662-1722. ?
Love it
Like it

pickrknowspickrknows loves this.
ho2cultchaho2cultcha loves this.
IlikeartIlikeart loves this.
Songwriter53Songwriter53 loves this.
Moonstonelover21Moonstonelover21 loves this.
BHock45BHock45 loves this.
lundylundy loves this.
nldionnenldionne loves this.
Vintage_JoeVintage_Joe likes this.
vetraio50vetraio50 loves this.
See 8 more
Add to collection

Please create an account, or Log in here

If you don't have an account, create one here.

Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate

Posted 5 years ago

(3 items)

Chinese New Year is around the corner. Wishing everyone a Happy Snake Year ahead!

Likely to be a 19th Century Qing dynasty Guangxu Porcelain Bowl. Wondering if anyone could share more in depth knowledge in this area of Chinese Ceramics.

Unsolved Mystery

Help us close this case. Add your knowledge below.


  1. toracat toracat, 5 years ago

    Tianqi 1621-1627
  2. toracat toracat, 5 years ago
    Looks like it some I saw but can not copy or Collector's will not allow to print!
  3. vetraio50 vetraio50, 5 years ago
    Xin Nian Kuai Le!
  4. Vintage_Joe Vintage_Joe, 5 years ago
    Dragon is very nice, vow!
  5. toracat toracat, 5 years ago
    That Dragon is like my Vietnam belt buckle that is posted! We were Manchu's 5-toed Imperial Dragon! "Keep Up The Fire" We got our name from Boxer Rebellion 1900! If it is 19th century, it is still very special!! The writing looks shiny new, but Antiques Roadshow said if bottom rim is brown and not smooth, rough it may be older? just a thought!
  6. davezquanw davezquanw, 5 years ago
    I do have several concerns when conducting my own research. Any other opinions?
  7. vetraio50 vetraio50, 5 years ago
    Is the foot deep enough? The angles look correct.
  8. davezquanw davezquanw, 5 years ago
    Kindly enlighten me on that further vetraio50! =) Foot deep enough meaning?
  9. vetraio50 vetraio50, 5 years ago
    I was wondering whether the foot could be higher/ deeper?
  10. davezquanw davezquanw, 5 years ago
    After learning from some experienced guys over at Asian Art Forum and my own research, the above piece should be a modern replica. The mark does not look like it was handwritten. Bubbles seem too uniform and fine. Dragon style does not resemble typical designs of Guangxu. Surface and base too flawless.
  11. davezquanw davezquanw, 5 years ago
    Haven't been able to verify the bottom rim and material yet. Not sure of how to tell if the dirt/dust is artificial or natural. More questions appear while looking for answers. Tough.
  12. davezquanw davezquanw, 5 years ago
    The blue underglaze looks suspicious as well.
  13. Justanovice Justanovice, 5 years ago
    Whatever - still a beaut!! Thank you for your comment on my bowl.
  14. nldionne nldionne, 5 years ago
    I agree justanovice it is beautiful. Thanks again Dave.
  15. Songwriter53 Songwriter53, 5 years ago
    Love it
  16. Ilikeart Ilikeart, 5 years ago
    I don't claim to be an expert in any way but upon research the mark on the bottom of your ceramic piece appears to be a Ming Reign Mark.
  17. davezquanw davezquanw, 5 years ago
    Pardon me Ilikeart, but this recent comment of yours makes me question your modern "Qianlong" piece (http://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/100206-my-rare-ancient-treasure?in=1024) even further. You may wish to study further in the area of Chinese Mandarin language, which will reveal that the above mark states Da Qing Guang Xu Nian Zhi - Guang Xu occurs during the late Qing dynasty my friend, not Ming dynasty. Ming comes way before Qing if that helps in your research.
  18. davezquanw davezquanw, 5 years ago
    Anyway, I do not think that the above is genuine. However, I aim to study drawing styles, pigments, glaze, bubbles and types of marks instead of promoting a piece with generic comments (that can be easily found on wikipedia) which does not add credibility to a piece in question. =)

Want to post a comment?

Create an account or login in order to post a comment.